Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <cd0170a7-86ab-ebb3-0aed-93b2e18be432@deltatee.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:56:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Content-Language: en-CA
To:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>,
        Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>, song@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        yukuai3@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com
References: <20220829131502.165356-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <20220829131502.165356-3-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <04128618-962f-fd4e-64a9-09ecf7f83776@deltatee.com>
 <917c01c1-1e2b-66f9-69f1-ed706b7ffc8f@linux.dev>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
In-Reply-To: <917c01c1-1e2b-66f9-69f1-ed706b7ffc8f@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] md/raid10: convert resync_lock to use seqlock
Precedence: bulk


On 2022-09-01 18:49, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/2/22 2:41 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022-08-29 07:15, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Currently, wait_barrier() will hold 'resync_lock' to read
>>> 'conf->barrier',
>>> and io can't be dispatched until 'barrier' is dropped.
>>>
>>> Since holding the 'barrier' is not common, convert 'resync_lock' to use
>>> seqlock so that holding lock can be avoided in fast path.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>> I've found some lockdep issues starting with this patch in md-next while
>> running mdadm tests (specifically 00raid10 when run about 10 times in a
>> row).
>>
>> I've seen a couple different lock dep errors. The first seems to be
>> reproducible on this patch, then it possibly changes to the second on
>> subsequent patches. Not sure exactly.
> 
> That's why I said "try mdadm test suites too to avoid regression." ...

You may have to run it multiple times, a single run tends not to catch
all errors. I had to loop the noted test 10 times to be sure I hit this
every time when I did the simple bisect.

And ensure that all the debug options are on when you run it (take a
look at the Kernel Hacking section in menuconfig). You won't hit this
bug without at least CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y.

Logan